South Carolina lawmakers are moving forward with what could be one of the nation’s most restrictive abortion bans. The proposed “Human Life Protection Act” would ban abortion from the moment of conception, with very limited exceptions only for when the mother’s life is in danger.
At a glance:
- South Carolina’s proposed “Human Life Protection Act” would ban abortion from conception
- The bill eliminates current exceptions for rape, incest, and fatal fetal anomalies
- Only exceptions would be for immediate threats to the mother’s life or serious bodily harm
- State Rep. John McCravy authored the bill, calling it “not a total ban”
- The bill faces public opposition but has strong Republican support in the legislature
Pro-Life Legislation Advances Despite Liberal Opposition
South Carolina is pushing the boundaries on abortion restrictions with the introduction of the “Human Life Protection Act” by Republican state Representative John McCravy. The bill would protect unborn children from the moment of conception, replacing the state’s current “Fetal Heartbeat Law” that bans most abortions after six weeks.
The legislation makes no exceptions for rape, incest, or fatal fetal anomalies – provisions that exist in the current law. Instead, it only allows for abortion when necessary to prevent the death of the mother or “substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function.”
Republican Support Grows Despite Calls to Wait
The bill has garnered significant Republican support in the House, though some GOP leaders have suggested waiting for guidance from the Supreme Court on the current law. “While my steadfast pro-life view is unwavering, and while the vast majority of members of our Republican Caucus share this same commitment, I believe we should consider the importance of waiting for any guidance that may be forthcoming from the Supreme Court,” stated Davey Hiott, a Republican leader.
Representative McCravy, the bill’s author, defended the legislation against critics claiming it goes too far. “As a society, we’ve done a terrible job recognizing the fact that babies in the womb deserve the same protection and the same chance at life,” McCravy said during a hearing on the bill.
The Republican lawmaker further emphasized that the proposal “is not a total ban” due to its exceptions for medical emergencies. However, these exceptions are much narrower than those in the current law, which progressives have already criticized as too restrictive.
Public Hearing Reveals Divided Opinion
A House Judiciary subcommittee recently held a hearing on the bill that drew hundreds of attendees and dozens of testimonies. The majority of speakers opposed the legislation, highlighting the contentious nature of abortion restrictions in the state.
Supporters of the bill argued that abortion is fundamentally wrong regardless of circumstances. “Abortion is murder. Everyone knows it, and it should be prosecuted as such,” testified Mark Corral during the subcommittee hearing.
Another supporter defended the bill on moral and scientific grounds, stating, “Science, medicine, natural law and moral law all disaffirm the necessity and rightness of abortion because it violates the integrity of the mothers, fathers, and child’s body and soul.” Opposition to the bill included concerns about women’s rights and autonomy in healthcare decisions.
For the legislation to become law, it must still gain approval from the subcommittee before advancing to the GOP-dominated state House and Senate. If passed, Governor Henry McMaster, a Republican who has consistently supported pro-life legislation, would likely sign it into law.
